Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to reiterate my request to ignore the deniers still posting here, as not doing so is turning this thread into a clown show. Instead of addressing their ridiculous posts and pseudo-scientific ideas, just use a form response:

"Learn the science before posting".
 
Haig said:
In 2015, moron climate scientists blame the Polar Vortex on global warming and decreasing Arctic ice.
Click to expand...

The Polar Vortex wasn't "blamed on global warming," it was the explanation to climate change deniers of the fundamental misunderstanding beneath their widespread claim "Record cold temperatures in NE United States proves global warming is bunk."

Once again, you are fractally wrong.
 
Last edited:
The Arctic dipole has been discussed here since at least 2008 ....it's just gotten stronger thanks to a warm Arctic decreasing the gradient causing a wandering jet stream.
One wonders if Haig even knows what a polar vortex is. :rolleyes:

Perhaps he'd like to explain it in his own words.
 
I follow the denialati via the excellent HotWhopper, where this just appeared

Why Christopher Monckton is getting nervous about global temperature
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/09/why-christopher-monckton-is-getting.html

Christopher Monckton has been showing signs of nervousness in his latest "it hasn't warmed since xyz" article at WUWT (archived here). He has started emphasising statements like this one: "As ever, a warning about the current el Niño. It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit ....". Here are some charts to explain his caution.
Click to expand...

and interesting charts they are, but more to the point is the concept of a Pause which gets shorter over time. We are through the Looking Glass here, people.

It turns out the start-point of the fabled Pause has been advancing for some years rather faster than reality and will quite soon (within the year probably) pass the 1998 peak and really screw the goose. What will the denialati talk about next?

In the comments at HotWhopper there's mention of a redefinition of the Pause, making it somehow refer to a model-observation comparison. I'm not at all sure how that'll work, but I'm dead sure it'll work on Haig. :cool:
 
Meanwhile in climate science news

Big...but not Godzilla

U.S. government forecasters upgraded this year's El Nino to an unusual strong status, but said it's probably not a record breaker or drought buster.

Mike Halpert, deputy director of the federal Climate Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the current worldwide weather shifting event doesn't match the monster El Nino of 1997-1998, nor is it likely to.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/el-nino-forecast-update-1.3223072

yet ;)
 
CapelDodger said:
Goddard and the three years since the record 2012 low - you're being ironic, yes? Best to be clear on that; some people might think you're being serious. :cool:
Click to expand...
Aye. Some folk need to look up the term 'regression to the trend'...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
uke2se said:
I would like to reiterate my request to ignore the deniers still posting here, as not doing so is turning this thread into a clown show. Instead of addressing their ridiculous posts and pseudo-scientific ideas, just use a form response:

"Learn the science before posting".
Click to expand...

I second this. I like skimming the posts for the latest climate news, not scrolling through Haig's denier-spam. Can we create a new thread ("AGW Denialism", maybe) and make this one strictly about discussing man-made global warming with the assumption it's already an indisputable scientific fact?
 
Fudbucker said:
I second this. I like skimming the posts for the latest climate news, not scrolling through Haig's denier-spam. Can we create a new thread ("AGW Denialism", maybe) and make this one strictly about discussing man-made global warming with the assumption it's already an indisputable scientific fact?
Click to expand...

Dan Kahan's studies at Yale indicate that the more a person with a libertarian worldview learns about science the more they reject it. People that have vested interests in the continued burning of fossil fuels and conspiracy theorists also will likely never accept valid climate science due to their cognitive biases. These types of deniers cannot change their stance due to their worldview so having them participate on a science forum is a waste of time.

The small number of articles that did not agree with AGW science have been reviewed and found to be flawed, so what do climate science deniers have to add to the conversation anyway?

The Koch Brothers (Kochtopus) have deniers on the payroll and there are probably sock puppets being paid to deny the science.

How many times should a known denier be allowed to spam the same drivel over and over again?

Reddit has a forum that deniers can't post on and the comments are kept separate and it's great. No need to wade through post after post of total nonsense to get to the meat and potatoes.

People that want to learn about climate change can post in this thread and people that can't accept the science can post in a different thread. Reddit posted that the overwhelming majority of scientists support AGW so climate science denial discussions will be kept separate.

Reddit/r/climate is a great example of how nicely a science forum can function. No need to keep the comments separate but remove the people that will never learn climate science due to unchangeable, intellectually debilitating cognitive biases.

Let's face it, if any valid science was ever to be discovered that refuted AGW it would be posted here in an instant.

.
 
Warmer1 said:
The Koch Brothers (Kochtopus) have deniers on the payroll and there are probably sock puppets being paid to deny the science..
Click to expand...

Isn't it fairly well a given that some of the $600m spent on disseminating misinformation includes a fair amount for trolling?
______________________

Meanwhile, new information shows the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet is a lot more vulnerable than anyone thought.

How's that guy going with his plan for dykes at 25 metres above today's sea level?
 
Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n9/full/ngeo2510.html


The oceans mediate the response of global climate to natural and anthropogenic forcings. Yet for the past 2,000 years — a key interval for understanding the present and future climate response to these forcings — global sea surface temperature changes and the underlying driving mechanisms are poorly constrained. Here we present a global synthesis of sea surface temperatures for the Common Era (ce) derived from 57 individual marine reconstructions that meet strict quality control criteria. We observe a cooling trend from 1 to 1800 ce that is robust against explicit tests for potential biases in the reconstructions. Between 801 and 1800 ce, the surface cooling trend is qualitatively consistent with an independent synthesis of terrestrial temperature reconstructions, and with a sea surface temperature composite derived from an ensemble of climate model simulations using best estimates of past external radiative forcings. Climate simulations using single and cumulative forcings suggest that the ocean surface cooling trend from 801 to 1800 ce is not primarily a response to orbital forcing but arises from a high frequency of explosive volcanism. Our results show that repeated clusters of volcanic eruptions can induce a net negative radiative forcing that results in a centennial and global scale cooling trend via a decline in mixed-layer oceanic heat content.
Click to expand...


I've never thought the Maunder Minimum was quite the villain it's often made out to be. This work appears to support that view, but will no doubt be critically examined and commented on. Indeed that's already started, rather lamely so far though (see http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/09/conspiracies-volcanoes-and-two-thousand.html).

One problem for the usual critics is that the paper reports a warm peak for the Vikings in Greenland and a Little Ice Age, making it a tricky target.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom